Difference between revisions of "Talk:Nominees Supreme Court"
From Phyllis Schlafly Eagles
m (→William Pryor) |
m (→William Pryor) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
==William Pryor== | ==William Pryor== | ||
| − | *"[H]e is very committed to stare decisis, which makes it less likely he would overturn Roe v. Wade"? It depends what you mean by "less likely." Sure, his devotion to precedent makes it less likely that he would overturn ''Roe'' than if he couldn't care less about precedent. But among Trump's 21 SCOTUS candidates, he seems as likely as any of them to overturn ''Roe''. After all, he has said that ''Roe v. Wade'' is the "[http://www.lifenews.com/2017/01/17/possible-trump-supreme-court-nominee-william-pryor-roe-is-the-worst-abomination-in-the-history-of-law/ worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.]" Pryor [https://www.amazon.com/Law-Judicial-Precedent-Bryan-Garner/dp/0314634207 co-authored a recent book] which says: "The doctrine of stare decisis applies less rigidly in constitutional cases than it does in statutory cases because the correction of erroneous constitutional | + | *"[H]e is very committed to stare decisis, which makes it less likely he would overturn Roe v. Wade"? It depends what you mean by "less likely." Sure, his devotion to precedent makes it less likely that he would overturn ''Roe'' than if he couldn't care less about precedent. But among Trump's 21 SCOTUS candidates, he seems as likely as any of them to overturn ''Roe''. After all, he has said that ''Roe v. Wade'' is the "[http://www.lifenews.com/2017/01/17/possible-trump-supreme-court-nominee-william-pryor-roe-is-the-worst-abomination-in-the-history-of-law/ worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.]" Pryor [https://www.amazon.com/Law-Judicial-Precedent-Bryan-Garner/dp/0314634207 co-authored a recent book] which says: "The doctrine of stare decisis [i.e. precedent] applies less rigidly in constitutional cases than it does in statutory cases because the correction of erroneous constitutional decisions by the legislature is well-nigh impossible. Yet stare decisis does play a significant role in constitutional adjudication."[[User:Andrew|Andrew]] ([[User talk:Andrew|talk]]) 16:58, 26 January 2017 (EST) |
Revision as of 18:00, 26 January 2017
Thomas Hardiman
He "lacks a powerful sponsor"? Not exactly. According to Quin Hillyer, "Trump’s sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, serves on the same circuit court as Hardiman and reportedly has recommended him quite highly to her brother. Personal connections matter a great deal to Trump."Andrew (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2017 (EST)
Neil Gorsuch
- He "is an extreme supporter of stare decisis"? Actually, in the very case cited, United States v. Games-Perez, he urged the en banc court to overturn the precedent in question.Andrew (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2017 (EST)
- He "sided with civil rights for 'gender identity' in 2009"? In that very case, he completely rejected the lawsuit brought by a transgender person. He did mention a prior case that had said "transgender individuals may state viable sex discrimination claims...." but there was no point in challenging that precedent (or endorsing it) since the plaintiff lost regardless of the precedent's validity.Andrew (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2017 (EST)
- He "belongs to the Episcopalian church that has publicly declared its 'unequivocal opposition' to pro-life laws." Correct, but that church has not banned members for opposing Roe v. Wade. See, for example, an interview in which Tucker Carlson says that he opposes that church's position on abortion but attends nevertheless.Andrew (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2017 (EST)
- In Pino v. United States, is it true that "Rather than render a pro-life ruling, Gorsuch punted this issue to the Oklahoma Supreme Court for it to decide"? Actually, no. Gorsuch joined with the renowned scholar and judge Michael W. McConnell in contacting the Oklahoma Supreme Court, at the request of the mother who lost her child. And once the Oklahoma Supreme Court replied, Gorsuch promptly reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the hospital.Andrew (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2017 (EST)
William Pryor
- "[H]e is very committed to stare decisis, which makes it less likely he would overturn Roe v. Wade"? It depends what you mean by "less likely." Sure, his devotion to precedent makes it less likely that he would overturn Roe than if he couldn't care less about precedent. But among Trump's 21 SCOTUS candidates, he seems as likely as any of them to overturn Roe. After all, he has said that Roe v. Wade is the "worst abomination in the history of constitutional law." Pryor co-authored a recent book which says: "The doctrine of stare decisis [i.e. precedent] applies less rigidly in constitutional cases than it does in statutory cases because the correction of erroneous constitutional decisions by the legislature is well-nigh impossible. Yet stare decisis does play a significant role in constitutional adjudication."Andrew (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2017 (EST)
